Connect with us

National

Minnesota gearing up for marriage fight

In symbolic move, guv vetoes 2012 ballot measure

Published

15 years ago

on

Donald McFarland is leading the effort for Minnesotans United for all Families (Photo courtesy of McFarland)

Supporters of LGBT rights are gearing up for yet another fight at the ballot against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

This time around, the theater for battle is Minnesota.

Donald McFarland, spokesperson for the new coalition known as Minnesotans United for All Families, said nearly 1,000 people have already signed up to work against the amendment on the campaign website within 48 hours of passage by the legislature.

“They are signing up by the hundreds to help us,” McFarland said. “It’s incredible actually. The outpouring of support to what happened Saturday night is as great as I have ever seen in my political career — and I’ve been doing this for 30 years.”

On Saturday, the Minnesota State House gave final approval to the proposed constitutional amendment by a vote of 70-62. The State Senate had already passed the measure.

The Republican-controlled legislature’s approval sends the measure to the state electorate. If a majority of voters approves the marriage ban in 2012, it will become part of the state constitution.

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Minnesota by statute, but passage of the amendment would prohibit the legislature from legalizing same-sex marriage in the future or the state courts from finding a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

A coalition of LGBT organizations — including national groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and Freedom to Marry as well as local groups OutFront Minnesota and Project 515— launched a new coalition, Minnesotans United for All Families, immediately upon approval of the amendment.

The plans for the nascent campaign are still being developed. An official campaign manager has yet to be named. Still, the campaign has already piqued the interest of supporters of same-sex marriage.

McFarland said the biggest goal at this point is to start a conversation with the Minnesota electorate about the love and commitment of same-sex couples and reminding voters that discrimination runs contrary to state values.

“The biggest component of the next many, many months is the fact that we’ll have an army of people, an army of volunteers, an army of smart, smart Minnesotans who want to help,” McFarland said. “That’s an advantage that we have ten-fold over the other side.”

McFarland, the de facto head of Minnesotans United for All Families until a campaign manager is selected, said he’s been involved in Minnesota politics for nearly 10 years.

In 2006, he was state director of American Voters, an organization that works to advance liberal-leaning policies and expand access to the ballot. Last year he worked as a communicators officer for the Minnesota Democratic Party.

McFarland’s LGBT portfolio includes working as the gay liaison in Philadelphia for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and serving as a board member for Project 515.

Money is already a concern for the new coalition. Proponents of the anti-gay amendment in Minnesota have pledged to raise $4.7 million to ensure its passage. McFarland said he wants to raise the amount dollar-for-dollar to thwart the effort.

“Things like fundraising goals are still being really fleshed out, but I will tell you that I am committed to raising $4.7 million to match what the other side claims it will spend,” McFarland said.

The output for the campaign is still under deliberation, but McFarland said he envisions paid television advertisements as well as additional paid media presence.

As supporters of same-sex marriage gear up for the fight, anti-gay groups, such as the Minnesota Family Council, are working for passage of the amendment.

The Minnesota Family Council had urged passage of the amendment, asserting that gays and lesbians eat human excrement, that gays and lesbians are more likely to be pedophiles and engage in bestiality, and that domestic partner benefits are a recruiting tool. The anti-gay group has since the scrubbed the language from its online promotions.

McFarland said maintaining a “respectful” tone throughout the campaign is a priority and criticized the anti-gay group’s tactics in the debate.

“It’s just vile language,” McFarland said. “It has no place here. It certainly has no place in Minnesota.”

The Minnesota Family Council didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s requests for comment for this article.

Polling on the amendment in Minnesota is limited, but is promising for those working to defeat the measure. A poll published May 13 by the Minnesota Star Tribune found that 55 percent of respondents oppose adding such language banning same-sex marriage to the state constitution while 39 percent favor such a measure.

McFarland said he thinks the polling is “absolutely” comforting news, but shouldn’t be seen as a guarantee that Minnesota voters will reject the proposed constitutional amendment.

“A year-and-a-half is a long time, so who knows?” McFarland said. “We want to beat this ballot question and we’re going to do everything we can to do that.”

Issac Wood, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said the 2012 presidential election — and the strength of President Obama — may have an impact on the result of the Minnesota ballot initiative.

“Often pundits and the media talk about referendums driving voter turnout and influencing elections, but in this case we may see the reverse,” Wood said. “If Obama is able to win a sizable victory in Minnesota again in 2012, which he won by 10 percentage points in 2008, perhaps he could draw enough socially liberal voters to the polls to defeat the marriage amendment as well.”

Wood said based on the history of the marriage ballot initiatives, Minnesota voters may approve the amendment. Still, he observed that national opinion on marriage has been evolving rapidly in the past year.

“Public opinion on the issue seems to be turning recently, with new polls showing nationwide approval of gay marriage on the rise,” Wood said. “Whether that approval has risen quickly enough to stem the tide of marriage amendments remains to be seen.”

Although there are promising poll numbers, a victory at the polls on the marriage issue is an extremely rare feat for LGBT rights supporters. Each time that a ban on same-sex marriage has come to voters at the state level, it has almost always been approved.

In 2006, Arizona voters rejected an amendment that would have made a ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions part of the state constitution. However, voters passed a similar amendment in 2008 that banned only same-sex marriage.

Despite the dismal batting average, McFarland said he plans to draw on lessons from those earlier battles and has had conversations with those who’ve gone before him.

“We’re currently talking to others in other states that have gone before us in these battles over same-sex couples’ ability to get married,” McFarland said. “We very much intend to be mindful of all of them as we move forward.”

Prominent Minnesotans have already spoken out against the amendment. On Wednesday, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) penned  a symbolic veto. Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, he doesn’t have the authority as governor to stop the initiative from becoming part of state law.

“Although I do not have the power to prevent this divisive and destructive constitutional amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November 2012, the legislature sent it to me in the form of a bill,” Dayton said. “Thus, symbolic as it may be, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign it or veto it. Without question, I am vetoing it.”

McFarland said he appreciates Dayton’s vocal opposition to the amendment — and said the governor was speaking out against it even before the legislature gave final approval — but he said he doesn’t think Dayton will play a large role in the campaign against the initiative.

“He’s the governor and his job is to be governor, not to be part of the campaign,” McFarland said. “His campaign was last year. Will he speak out about this issue? I believe he will because he feels passionately about this, like so many other Minnesotans.”

Another prominent politician from Minnesota has voiced a similar objection. On Monday, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) also slammed the amendment in a statement to media outlets.

“Every Minnesotan deserves dignity and equal treatment under the law, and our state’s same-sex couples should have the same right to marry as anyone else — period,” Franken said. “This amendment would do nothing more than write discrimination into our state’s constitution and add to the barriers same-sex couples already face to the full recognition of their families. I’m hopeful that common sense and compassion will prevail and that this amendment will be defeated.”

Also earlier this week, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye issued a statement to the Washington Blade on President Obama’s position on the measure.

“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples or to take such rights away,” Inouye said. “While he believes this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also believes that committed gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.”

The statement doesn’t explicitly mention the proposed constitutional amendment in Minnesota. Additionally, the statement reaffirms Obama’s lack of support for same-sex marriage rights by saying the issue is “best addressed by the states.”

McFarland said he’s “thrilled” the White House issued a statement, but dodged on whether he’d like to see more from Obama over the course of the campaign against the amendment.

“I really have no answer to that,” McFarland said. “I’m not going to make a call in the press to the White House. I’m not comfortable with that.”

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill

Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys

Published

2 days ago

on

May 1, 2026

By

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.

A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.

The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.

The five riders are:

Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.

Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”

Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.

Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.

Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.

The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.

If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.

This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.

The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.

Continue Reading

Noticias en Español

The university that refuses to let go

Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike

Published

2 days ago

on

May 1, 2026

By

Joanna Cifredo outside the University of Puerto Rico campus in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. (Washington Blade photo by Ignacio Estrada Cepero)

Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.

I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.

I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.

There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.

Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.

From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.

And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.

Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.

The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.

In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.

I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.

How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?

Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.

Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.

He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.

Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.

Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?

Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.

A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.

Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.

Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.

Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.

As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?

Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.

For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?

La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.

It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.

After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.

Continue Reading

National

Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup

Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited

Published

4 days ago

on

April 29, 2026

By

(Photo by fifg/Bigstock)

More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.

“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23.  “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”

“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”

The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.

The full advisory can be read here.

Continue Reading

Popular